Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 It is also a difficulty for me to argue that the context has or has not been changed because we have no idea of the original script, how much had been influenced by the Paulian school, or what was in the mind of the original writer (who ever he was). So I would say asking for a meaning would be asking for pure conjecture and highly influenced by who is reading it (IMO). For me we I would be tempted to go for the Spirit being in agreement with the baptism and blood of Jesus (i.e Jesus' life and death). Yet, I would not go as far as placing enthusiasm that this view is the correct view and only one, only that it seems to make sense to me. This I believe does change its meaning from Father, Son and Holy Ghost (IMO) and does not endorse the concept of trinity. there ya go pete... good enough for me... I take it further because the concept appears no where else in the text... In my mind that is definitive..I guess one of the differences here is I prefer to keep my options open rather than insisting that some sort of script is ultimately understood and is correct against all argument. I feel the need to be assured of the NATURE of the DIVINE... because the use with which Jesus is put to with the concept of the Doctrine of The Trinity... that does not mean I do not see God as being able to show Himself in whatever aspect He chooses... whether it be The Father, The Water, or the Blood.... I simply insist that the WATER does not translate as the concept of The Word as described by The Doctrine of The Trinity... and I believe that is supported...I know you have argued over the Logos but there are been much debate about the concept of the trinity. As G.H.C Macgregor describes the issue in regard to John 1:1. "John does not say the logos was God; still less he does he imply merely that the logos possessed certain divine qualities. He means that the logos was partaker of the divine essence." Macgregor (1953) The Moffatt NT commentary, Hodder & Stoughton, London, page 4. In other words a quality of God which Jesus shared. It is the sense of sharing that has led to much speculation on how much Jesus shared of God and was of God and part of God, from which the trinity has sort to solve (as I understand it).I believe that the the Doctrine of The Trinity is used for a purpose not implied In ANY early text... but i agree with everything else you said...I guess it truly does come down to a belief... well, each to his own... and I'm fine with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Also a second time asking this question:How should the passage read Michael?exactly as it does in any version besides the KJV... and yet you continue to see the Trinity in every version......However, an attempt to explain the mystery to some extent must break down, and has limited usefulness, being designed, not so much to fully explain the Trinity, but to point to the experience of communion with the Triune God within the Church as the Body of Christ. The difference between those who believe in the Trinity and those who do not, is not an issue of understanding the mystery. The difference is primarily one of belief concerning the personal identity of Christ. It is a difference in conception of the salvation connected with Christ that drives all reactions, either favorable or unfavorable, to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As it is, the doctrine of the Trinity is directly tied up with Christology.which I have explained from my view, while you continue with your repetition....That is not correct. The UBS 4th edition (called the 'critical text') is claimed by scholars to very close to the original text.To say that we have 'no idea' is just misleading and maybe even wishful thinking for some.kind of like seeing the trinity where no genuine references exist..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Yeah....even though God, the Son, and the Spirit are specifically mentioned in the text, right, I get ya. I would argue that you are reading into it instead of letting it speak for itelf.mmm! I would love to you to respond to Fawzo's post without reading into it and letting it speak for itself:-Quote:- Dan I do not doubt God's ability to preserve His Word. He need not write it down as it is written in the heart and mind of every sentient being.What I do doubt is your abilty to objectively decide which one of the tens of thousands of alleged written words of God and their variants that exist on our planet are closest to the one written in the mind of Christ Consciousness. Lets face it the odds are at least 1 in 100,000 that you have selected correctly and the odd thing is everyone is making the same bet with their life. Why is your wager a better bet?Did God really mean there are storehouses in the sky for the wind. Is the firmament a hardened shell with windows for the rain to come through, Did God really mean that it is ok to kill adulterers, disobedient children, people who work the Sabbath. Is it ok to sell your daughter off or to beat a slave to death as long as he lives for two days because he is your property. Is it ok to kill 30 cities full of people because you and your family need a place to stay. Was the earth created in 6 days. Are bats birds and man only exist here for 6 thousand years. Are women turned to salt and men live inside fish under the sea for 3 days. Didn't rainbows exist before there was an alleged Great Global flood.Sounds like a lot of superstitious nonsense to a lot of people and yet you and a lot of other people are betting all your chips on it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhand Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 exactly as it does in any version besides the KJV... and yet you continue to see the Trinity in every version......which I have explained from my view, while you continue with your repetition....kind of like seeing the trinity where no genuine references exist.....Ok...I see where we are. A few questions:How can you ignore that the context of the passage is talking about God, Jesus, and the Spirit REPEATEDLY and say there is no reference to the trinity?How can you assert and defend a different reading than the critical text (which is based on textual evidence) exisits without having a text to argue from?Maybe you should just discuss your feelings about the texts; that seems to be a little more comfortable for you.mmm! I would love to you to respond to Fawzo's post without reading into it and letting it speak for itself:-Where have I dont that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I would argue that they have been debating the idea of the trinity for some time. Remember the arguments with Arius and how nasty that got". Here is a quote that shows some of the dilemmas in the issue.Buster132 For example,whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him, butwhoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not inthis system of things nor in that to come (Matthew 12). So the holy spirit and the Son are not co-equal and aredifferent beings.Buster2 15 He said to them: You, though, who do you say I am?16 In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, theSon of the living God.17 In response Jesus said to him: Happy you are, Simon,son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Fatherwho is in the heavens did (Matthew 16).So God revealed it not Jesus, so they are two differentspirits.Buster323 He said to them: You will indeed drink my cup, butthis sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but itbelongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father (Matthew 20).So God and Jesus have separate possessions.Buster418 Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? Nobody isgood, except one, God (Mark 10).So God is good and Jesus is not, so they are differentpeople with different characters and different levels of righteousness.Buster536 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither theangels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24).So God knows things that Jesus does not know. So theyhave no 'unity of Godhead'.Buster61 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith inGod. Exercise faith also in me (John 14).Two different beings to put your faith in.Buster728 You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I amcoming [back] to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my wayto the Father, because the Father is greater than I am (John 14).So the two of them are not co-equal then.Buster8 42 saying: Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.Nevertheless, let not my will, but yours take place (Luke 22).So God and Jesus have two different wills. So there is no'unity of Godhead'.Buster9 41 Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raisedhis eyes heavenward and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me.42 True, I knew that you always hear me; but on accountof the crowd standing around I spoke, in order that they might believe that yousent me forth (John 11). So God sent Jesus forth, and God himself remainedentirely in heaven whilst Jesus was on the earth.Buster10 9 You must pray, then, this way: Our Father in theheavens, let your name be sanctified (Matthew 6). Jesus himself was entirely on earth and God was entirelyin heaven when he said this!Buster1146 About the 9th hour Jesus called out with a loud voice,saying: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why have youforsaken me? (Matthew 27).One cannot easily forsake oneself can one! The Father wasGod of the son. The son was not God of the father. This was one of Sir IsaacNewton's anti trinity arguments.As a final argument, if it is true that Jesus and God arethe same person, then Jesus talked to himself in public, and prayed to himselfin private and so was in fact a schizophrenic. This is plainly a false insultboth to God and to his Son. Buster12 16 The one alone having immortality [aqanasian], dwellingin unapproachable light, whom no one of men has seen, nor is able to see (1Timothy 6). Literally aqanasian means 'without death'. So God has notdied and will never die. Whereas of course Jesus has died. Therefore Jesus isnot God - QED.Buster13 5 So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming ahigh priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: Youare my son; I, today, I have become your father.6 Just as he says also in another place: You are a priestforever according to the manner of Melchizedek.7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered upsupplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out ofdeath, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godlyfear.8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from thethings he suffered;9 and after he had been made perfect he becameresponsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,10 because he has been specifically called by God a highpriest according to the manner of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5) One cannot be a priest of oneself. Jesus must be adifferent person to God in order that he can be God's priest. Just asMelchizedek was a different person to God. God became Jesus' father again bysaving him out of death, by resurrecting him. Buster14 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits,afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to hisGod and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authorityand power (1 Corinthians15). How do you hand over something to yourself?" Taken from:- http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro39.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhand Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I would argue that they have been debating the idea of the trinity for some time. Remember the arguments with Arius and how nasty that got". Here is a quote that shows some of the dilemmas in the issue.Buster132 For example,whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him, butwhoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not inthis system of things nor in that to come (Matthew 12). So the holy spirit and the Son are not co-equal and aredifferent beings.Buster2 15 He said to them: You, though, who do you say I am?16 In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, theSon of the living God.17 In response Jesus said to him: Happy you are, Simon,son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Fatherwho is in the heavens did (Matthew 16).So God revealed it not Jesus, so they are two differentspirits.Buster323 He said to them: You will indeed drink my cup, butthis sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but itbelongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father (Matthew 20).So God and Jesus have separate possessions.Buster418 Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? Nobody isgood, except one, God (Mark 10).So God is good and Jesus is not, so they are differentpeople with different characters and different levels of righteousness.Buster536 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither theangels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24).So God knows things that Jesus does not know. So theyhave no 'unity of Godhead'.Buster61 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith inGod. Exercise faith also in me (John 14).Two different beings to put your faith in.Buster728 You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I amcoming [back] to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my wayto the Father, because the Father is greater than I am (John 14).So the two of them are not co-equal then.Buster8 42 saying: Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.Nevertheless, let not my will, but yours take place (Luke 22).So God and Jesus have two different wills. So there is no'unity of Godhead'.Buster9 41 Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raisedhis eyes heavenward and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me.42 True, I knew that you always hear me; but on accountof the crowd standing around I spoke, in order that they might believe that yousent me forth (John 11). So God sent Jesus forth, and God himself remainedentirely in heaven whilst Jesus was on the earth.Buster10 9 You must pray, then, this way: Our Father in theheavens, let your name be sanctified (Matthew 6). Jesus himself was entirely on earth and God was entirelyin heaven when he said this!Buster1146 About the 9th hour Jesus called out with a loud voice,saying: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why have youforsaken me? (Matthew 27).One cannot easily forsake oneself can one! The Father wasGod of the son. The son was not God of the father. This was one of Sir IsaacNewton's anti trinity arguments.As a final argument, if it is true that Jesus and God arethe same person, then Jesus talked to himself in public, and prayed to himselfin private and so was in fact a schizophrenic. This is plainly a false insultboth to God and to his Son. Buster12 16 The one alone having immortality [aqanasian], dwellingin unapproachable light, whom no one of men has seen, nor is able to see (1Timothy 6). Literally aqanasian means 'without death'. So God has notdied and will never die. Whereas of course Jesus has died. Therefore Jesus isnot God - QED.Buster13 5 So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming ahigh priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: Youare my son; I, today, I have become your father.6 Just as he says also in another place: You are a priestforever according to the manner of Melchizedek.7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered upsupplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out ofdeath, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godlyfear.8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from thethings he suffered;9 and after he had been made perfect he becameresponsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,10 because he has been specifically called by God a highpriest according to the manner of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5) One cannot be a priest of oneself. Jesus must be adifferent person to God in order that he can be God's priest. Just asMelchizedek was a different person to God. God became Jesus' father again bysaving him out of death, by resurrecting him. Buster14 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits,afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to hisGod and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authorityand power (1 Corinthians15). How do you hand over something to yourself?" Taken from:- http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro39.htmlSo are you now arguing FOR the trinity? Trinitarians would say that God is three persons, which seems to agree with your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ok...I see where we are. A few questions:How can you ignore that the context of the passage is talking about God, Jesus, and the Spirit REPEATEDLY and say there is no reference to the trinity?because the Triune representation of the Godhead is not the same as The Doctrine of the Trinity...How can you assert and defend a different reading than the critical text (which is based on textual evidence) exisits without having a text to argue from?which would be the reason for quoting the church elders who DID have a chance to read from those texts... one would think it would be obvious that one needs to keep an open mind about such things however... which is why I would make sure that such references quote the texts which those opinions may be found in....Maybe you should just discuss your feelings about the texts; that seems to be a little more comfortable for you.that seems to be where you are stuck, cool... repeatedly asking the same questions, waiting for me to get tired, so you can assert yours is the winner.... and a less comfortable method would be hard to find... it's like talking to a parrot....Where have I dont that?your spelling seems to be falling apart... are you getting a little upset cool? Is that why you resort to insulting e-mails questioning my understanding of everything from the facts of this particular matter to my own understanding of the New Testament? It is quite obvious how upset you are, because I could hardly follow your insults.... most of it made no sense whatsoever... what exactly does this mean? " If you take the comments of the Church Fathers and remove the allusions to texts that it is not clear about what they are talking about, you will find that your confidence in the New Testament text will increase, and you will see the strong foundation in which it sits. "I assume it means you would like me to stop referencing the Church Fathers? You assert there is no use in reading what they had to say? cool, they are the only ones who had the chance to read some of those missing texts we were just referring to - of course one must keep an open mind about their opinions, but to insist their opinions are worthless? It becomes more and more obvious the mindset which makes these conversations so difficult... and cool.... If you have a personal problem you would like to talk about, or you simply miss me, and would like to chat- by all means send me an e-mail, but please keep your arguments where they belong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) So are you now arguing FOR the trinity? Trinitarians would say that God is three persons, which seems to agree with your post.Trinitarians argue that there are three identities that make up the Godhead. As for agreeing with them I can only say I do not think I do. I believe God is spirit and as such can dwell in whom he wishes. I essentially believe there is one God and one identity. Brother Michael Sky it seems you got an email too. I am glad I am not alone. Edited November 2, 2010 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) the interjection of the trinity was for exactly this reason... confusion... and to place an intermediary between God and Man... when no such intermediary was intended...Yes, Pete while I am always excited to see a fellow minister has decided to approach me in private - that was not a warm, fuzzy kind of thing.... Edited November 2, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) the interjection of the trinity was for exactly this reason... confusion... and to place an intermediary between God and Man... when no such intermediary was intended...Yes, Pete while I am always excited to see a fellow minister has decided to approach me in private - that was not a warm, fuzzy kind of thing.... I am sorry for the laughing at the email comment. The one I received was accusatory rather than abusive towards me. I too like people sending me emails and private messages but I also like to keep the debates in the open. I have not seen the message you got sent. I am sorry it happened. Like you say God has had no trouble according to the bible in talking to mankind and did not need an intermediary to do that. I fear this is one of those things that got lost when the church stopped listening to the Jews. Edited November 2, 2010 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhand Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) because the Triune representation of the Godhead is not the same as The Doctrine of the Trinity...which would be the reason for quoting the church elders who DID have a chance to read from those texts... one would think it would be obvious that one needs to keep an open mind about such things however... which is why I would make sure that such references quote the texts which those opinions may be found in....that seems to be where you are stuck, cool... repeatedly asking the same questions, waiting for me to get tired, so you can assert yours is the winner.... and a less comfortable method would be hard to find... it's like talking to a parrot....your spelling seems to be falling apart... are you getting a little upset cool? Is that why you resort to insulting e-mails questioning my understanding of everything from the facts of this particular matter to my own understanding of the New Testament? It is quite obvious how upset you are, because I could hardly follow your insults.... most of it made no sense whatsoever... what exactly does this mean? " If you take the comments of the Church Fathers and remove the allusions to texts that it is not clear about what they are talking about, you will find that your confidence in the New Testament text will increase, and you will see the strong foundation in which it sits. "I assume it means you would like me to stop referencing the Church Fathers? You assert there is no use in reading what they had to say? cool, they are the only ones who had the chance to read some of those missing texts we were just referring to - of course one must keep an open mind about their opinions, but to insist their opinions are worthless? It becomes more and more obvious the mindset which makes these conversations so difficult... and cool.... If you have a personal problem you would like to talk about, or you simply miss me, and would like to chat- by all means send me an e-mail, but please keep your arguments where they belong....I guess I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at your refusal to accept that a text that mentions God, Jesus, and the Spirit all in the same passage; and that assumes the trinity by its context; means that this is presumed. I'm not talking about the doctrine of anything; I'm just talking about the plain reading of the text without reading anything into it, or out of it.Having an open mind is how I form the positions that I have. You might consider reading a primary source document, called the "Introduction" of The Greek New Testament 4th Edition. There you will discover that:"The whole field of New Testament citations in the Church Fathers has been thoroughly reviewed. For a citation to be included there were two criteria to be met. The citation must be capable of verification, i.e., the New Testament text or manuscript cited by the author must be identifiable. Patristic paraphrases, variations, and allusions have no place in this edition. The citation must relate clearly to a specific passage in the New Testament."In other words, these conspiracy theories that abound that have no verifiable proof are not considered by the scholars who actually compare the texts to revise the New Testament.Of course, feel free take what I said and stretch it to some ridicules extreme as you see fit. Edited November 2, 2010 by Coolhand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) I am sorry for the laughing at the email comment. The one I received was accusatory rather than abusive towards me. I too like people sending me emails and private messages but I also like to keep the debates in the open. I have not seen the message you got sent. I am sorry it happened. Like you say God has had no trouble according to the bible in talking to mankind and did not need an intermediary to do that. I fear this is one of those things that got lost when the church stopped listening to the Jews.I was trying to point out earlier that it is possible to get an idea of how the usage for the words themselves have evolved throughout the course of time....by looking up one word, you are introduced to similar words, and you begin to see the slight differences in usage... and i personally think it is possible to get a firm grasp of INTENTION when following this chain.... It's just that you have to draw a line somewhere in how much you are willing to post as reference - sometimes awareness is enough - it will cause curiosity which will send another on the same search, so that they might form their OWN opinion... and we ARE here to share... and I genuinely DO want to know other opinions... it's a dry dusty thing to concentrate on the words of scholars and ancient persons... real live contemporary peers make it so much more " flavorful ".....I guess I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at your refusal to accept that a text that mentions God, Jesus, and the Spirit all in the same passage; and that assumes the trinity by its context; means that this is presumed. I'm not talking about the doctrine of anything; I'm just talking about the plain reading of the text without reading anything into it, or out of it.Having an open mind is how I form the positions that I have. You might consider reading a primary source document, called the "Introduction" of The Greek New Testament 4th Edition. There you will discover that:"The whole field of New Testament citations in the Church Fathers has been thoroughly reviewed. For a citation to be included there were two criteria to be met. The citation must be capable of verification, i.e., the New Testament text or manuscript cited by the author must be identifiable. Patristic paraphrases, variations, and allusions have no place in this edition. The citation must relate clearly to a specific passage in the New Testament."In other words, these conspiracy theories that abound that have no verifiable proof are not considered by the scholars who actually compare the texts to revise the New Testament.Of course, feel free take what I said and stretch it to some ridicules extreme as you see fit.I feel much more confidence in doing the work for myself cool, so I don't find myself handing out another's opinion blindly... It's important to me, and the bible tells me to SEARCH for the truth... besides which, I am always wondering if this type of work is being done in these Biblical Higher Learning places like YOU are in..... Edited November 2, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) I was trying to point out earlier that it is possible to get an idea of how the usage for the words themselves have evolved throughout the course of time....by looking up one word, you are introduced to similar words, and you begin to see the slight differences in usage... and i personally think it is possible to get a firm grasp of INTENTION when following this chain.... It's just that you have to draw a line somewhere in how much you are willing to post as reference - sometimes awareness is enough - it will cause curiosity which will send another on the same search, so that they might form their OWN opinion... and we ARE here to share... and I genuinely DO want to know other opinions... it's a dry dusty thing to concentrate on the words of scholars and ancient persons... real live contemporary peers make it so much more " flavorful ".....I feel much more confidence in doing the work for myself cool, so I don't find myself handing out another's opinion blindly... It's important to me, and the bible tells me to SEARCH for the truth... I agree. The other issue is we have no idea of the original documents and what alterations they may have been. I always find it a marvel that the early Marks Gospel forgot to mention the resurrection and that having so much significance to Paul and others. Sometimes in prayer God supplies all in spirit and we sense what is important (IMO) and it is not the digging into the minutia of textural meaning for me but the closeness of the relationship with God. Edited November 2, 2010 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I agree. The other issue is we have no idea of the original documents and what alterations they may have been. I always find it a marvel that the early Marks Gospel forgot to mention the resurrection and that having so much significance to Paul and others. Sometimes in prayer God supplies all in spirit and we sense what is important (IMO) and it is not the digging into the minutia of textural meaning for me but the closeness of the relationship with God. I find inspiration sometimes IN the minutiae.. when my mind is tracking down these dry, dusty things it has a tendency to be open to inspiration.. i find myself taking long, winding pathways to EXACTLY what was troubling me... and there I find comfort.... one way or another... It is seldom that I am completely stumped, because somewhere along the way my understanding is enlarged, and I find a new avenue to consider... but I do recognize that we are all different and take different paths to understanding... and I do truly believe we are greater together, than in our individual parts, which is why I frequent here so much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I find inspiration sometimes IN the minutiae.. when my mind is tracking down these dry, dusty things it has a tendency to be open to inspiration.. i find myself taking long, winding pathways to EXACTLY what was troubling me... and there I find comfort.... one way or another... It is seldom that I am completely stumped, because somewhere along the way my understanding is enlarged, and I find a new avenue to consider... but I do recognize that we are all different and take different paths to understanding... and I do truly believe we are greater together, than in our individual parts, which is why I frequent here so much...amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) amen Just found this from "Quaker Faith and Practice" :-"I know of no other way, in these deeper depths, of trusting in the name of the Lord, and staying upon God, than sinking into silence and nothingness before Him... So long as the enemy can keep us reasoning he can buffet us to and fro; but into the true solemn silence of the soul before God he cannot follow us.John Bellows, 1895"It describes my view better than I expressed. Edited November 2, 2010 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Just found this from "Quaker Faith and Practice" :-"I know of no other way, in these deeper depths, of trusting in the name of the Lord, and staying upon God, than sinking into silence and nothingness before Him... So long as the enemy can keep us reasoning he can buffet us to and fro; but into the true solemn silence of the soul before God he cannot follow us.John Bellows, 1895"It describes my view better than I expressed.Have you ever sat in on a quaker service Pete? It was a bit unnerving the first time for me, as I didn't know what to expect, but there IS a different feeling when sitting in the silence with a room full of people. It is a powerful experience in my mind... and I can immediately understand why it holds the attraction that it does. There's a quaker meeting house about 20 minutes from my house... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Have you ever sat in on a quaker service Pete? It was a bit unnerving the first time for me, as I didn't know what to expect, but there IS a different feeling when sitting in the silence with a room full of people. It is a powerful experience in my mind... and I can immediately understand why it holds the attraction that it does. There's a quaker meeting house about 20 minutes from my house...I go to a Quaker meeting. That is my church. I agree it is powerful in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Michael Sky Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I go to a Quaker meeting. That is my church. I agree it is powerful in my experience.well, I guess I have learned something here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawzo Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'll have to try a Quaker service, it sounds interesting.I think a big problem for this concept of Trinity and the Divinity of Yeshua is that the four Gospel writers and Paul aren't delivering to us the same personality. Just compare the suffering human like Jesus in the Gospel of Mark who is capable of being tempted, prays for the cup to pass him by and cries out in agony and abandonment in his final moments, with the super human and Divine Jesus who is beyond being tempted always in control, and scoffs at asking the cup to pass him by. he even is in control up to the final moments on the cross when instead of crying out in agony and abandonment he simply states "it is finished"The Four Gospels do not paint for us one homogenous Jesus. There is the more human Jesus in Mark, the teaching Rabbi like preacher in Matthew, the mediator in Luke and the super hero ultra Divine man in John.I think the Jesus in the Gospel of Mark would barely recognize the Man in the Gospel of John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts